3 ms·
> To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing harm" at all. You're still basing yourself on wh
by thosakwe 7y ago
> To begin with, "causing harm" is still essentialyl subjective. An anti-vaxxer wouldn't think they're "causing harm" at all. You're still basing yourself on whether or not you agree with someone or not.
It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are.
Anti-vaxxers have led to the resurgence of diseases once thought to be extinct.
White supremacists carry out acts of terrorism/violence against people of color, and lobby against laws that would improve the quality of life for minority groups (sometimes, they are actually the elected officials voting on these laws). And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
People who defend sex offenders let alleged rapists get elected to the highest legal office in the land just because of party affiliation.
That is in no way comparable to using Apache over nginx.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago> It's not about whether you think you're causing harm... It's about whether you objectively are. Not my personal view but I will point out that from the point of view of a vegan or PETA, raising animals and slaughtering them for meat and other animal products is causing harm. And you cannot objectively deny that the deaths and incidental suffering of those animals is not harm. Are they justified in considering you (assuming you consume animal products) toxic and immoral? Your heuristic is not meaningful.